References to Work by Bohr

Other References

• Bacciagaluppi, G., 2016, “The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/qm-decoherence/>. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “An Everett Perspective on Bohr and EPR”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury, pp. 289–302. (Scholar)
• Barad, K., 2007, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham, NC: Durham University Press. (Scholar)
• Beller, M., 1992, “The Birth of Bohr’s Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 147–180. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
• Bitbol, M., 2013, “Bohr’s complementarity and Kant’s epistemology”, in Séminaire Poincaré 17: 145–166. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “On Bohr’s Transcendental Research Program”, in Faye and Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, pp. 47–66. (Scholar)
• Brock, S., 2003, Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of Theoretical Physics, Berlin: Logos Verlag. (Scholar)
• Bub, J. and R. Clifton, 1996, “The uniqueness theorem for ‘no collapse’ interpretations of quantum mechanics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27(2): 181–219. (Scholar)
• Bunge, M., 1967, “The Turn of the Tide”, in Mario Bunge (ed.) Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12. (Scholar)
• Bächtold, M., 2017, “On Bohr’s Epistemological Contribution to the Quantum-Classical Cut Problems”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 235–252. (Scholar)
• Camilleri, K., 2006, “Heisenberg and the Wave-particle Duality”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 298–315. (Scholar)
• –––, 2007, “Bohr, Heisenberg and the Divergent Views of Complementarity”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 514–528. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Why Do We Find Bohr Obscure? Reading Bohr as a Philosopher of Experiment”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.) Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 19–48. (Scholar)
• Camilleri, K. and M. Schlosshauer, 2015, “Niels Bohr as philosopher of experiment: Does decoherence theory challenge Bohr’s doctrine of classical concepts?”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 49: 73–83. (Scholar)
• Chevalley, C., 1991, “Introduction: Le dessin et la couleur”, in Niels Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès (trans.), Catherine Chevalley (ed.), Paris: Gallimard, pp. 17–140. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, “Niels Bohr’s Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 33–55. (Scholar)
• Christiansen, F. V., 2006, “Heinrich Hertz’ neo-Kantian philosophy of science, and its development by Harald Høffding”, in Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 37: 1–20. (Scholar)
• Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson, 1999, “Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables”, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38: 2441–2484. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “Reconsidering Bohr’s reply to EPR”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. (Scholar)
• Cuffaro, M., 2010, “The Kantian framework of complementarity ”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 309–317. (Scholar)
• Cushing, J., 1994,Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency, and the Copenhagen Hegemony, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
• Dickson, M., 2001, “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr’s Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, M. & F. Stadler (eds.), History of Philosophy of Science — New Trends and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 263–275. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “Bohr on Bell: A Proposed Reading of Bohr and Its Implications for Bell’s Theorem”, in T. Placek and J. Butterfield (eds.), Non-locality and Modality, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, (Scholar)
• Dieks, D., 2017, “Niels Bohr and the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 303–334. (Scholar)
• Dorato, M., 2017, “Bohr’s Relational Holism and the Classical-Quantum Interaction”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 133–154. (Scholar)
• Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, 1935, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780. (Scholar)
• Favrholdt, D., 1994, “Niels Bohr and Realism”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 77–96. (Scholar)
• Faye, J., 1991, Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Antirealist View of Quantum Mechanics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, “Non-Locality or Non-Separability? A Defense of Bohr’s Anti-Realist Approach to Quantum Mechanics”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 97–118. (Scholar)
• –––, 2008, “Niels Bohr and the Vienna Circle”, in Manninen, J. and F. Stadler (eds.) The Vienna Circle in the Nordic Countries (The Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, 14), Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Complementarity and Human Nature”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.) Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics., London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 115–132. (Scholar)
• Faye, J., and H. Folse (eds.), 1994, Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume 158), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. (Scholar)
• Faye, J., and H. Folse (eds.), 2017, Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics. Twenty-First-Century Perspectives, London: Bloomsbury Academic. (Scholar)
• Feyerabend, P., 1968, “On a recent critique of complementarity I.”, Philosophy of Science, 35: 309–331. (Scholar)
• –––, 1969, “On a recent critique of complementarity II”, Philosophy of Science, 36: 82–105. (Scholar)
• Folse, H., 1978, “Kantian Aspects of Complementarity”, Kantstudien, 69: 58–65. (Scholar)
• –––, 1985, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity, Amsterdam: North Holland. (Scholar)
• –––, 1986, “Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds), PSA 1986: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Volume I), East Lansing: PSA, pp. 96–104. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, “Bohr’s Framework of Complementarity and the Realism Debate”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 119–139. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Complementarity and Pragmatic Epistemology. A Comparison of Bohr and C.I. Lewis ”, in Faye and Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 91–115. (Scholar)
• Gomatam, R., 2007, “Niels Bohr’s Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation — Are the two incompatible?”, in Philosophy of Science, 74(5): 736–748. (Scholar)
• Halvorson, H., 2004, “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 45–56. (Scholar)
• Hebor, J., 2005, The Standard Conception as Genuine Quantum Realism, Odense: The University Press of Southern Denmark. (Scholar)
• Heisenberg, W., 1955, “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in W. Pauli (ed), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, London: Pergamon pp. 12–29. (Scholar)
• –––, 1958, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, London: George Allen & Unwin. (Scholar)
• Held, C., 1994, “The Meaning of Complementarity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25: 871–893. (Scholar)
• Henderson, J. R., 2010, “Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1–8. (Scholar)
• Honner, J., 1982, “The transcendental philosophy of Niels Bohr”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 13: 1–29. (Scholar)
• –––, 1987, The Description of Nature: Niels Bohr and The Philosophy of Quantum Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, “Description and Deconstruction: Niels Bohr and Modern Philosophy”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 141–154. (Scholar)
• Hooker, C. A., 1972, “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–305. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, “Bohr and the Crisis of empirical intelligibility”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 155–199. (Scholar)
• Howard, D., 1994, “What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 201–229. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004, “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation?’ A Study in Mythology”, Philosophy of Science, 71: 669–682. (Scholar)
• Kaiser, D., 1992, “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 213–239. (Scholar)
• Katsumori, M., 2011, Niels Bohr’s Complementarity. Its Structure, History, and Intersections with Hermeneutics and Deconstruction, (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume 286), Dordrecht: Springer. (Scholar)
• Kauark-Leite, P., 2017, “Transcendental versus Quantitative Meaning of Bohr’s Complementarity Principle”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 67–90. (Scholar)
• Landsman, N.P., 2006,“When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate.”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 212–242. (Scholar)
• –––, 2007, “Between classical and quantum”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Science (Volume 2: Philosophy of Physics), J. Earman & J. Butterfield (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 415–555. (Scholar)
• MacKinnon, E., 1994, “Bohr and the Realism Debates”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 279–302. (Scholar)
• Massimi, M., 2005, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle. The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Murdoch, D., 1987, Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Perovic, S., 2013, “Emergence of Complementarity and the Baconian roots of Niels Bohr’s Method”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44(3): 162–173. (Scholar)
• Petruccioli, S., 1993, Atoms, Metaphors and Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Plotnitsky, A., 1994, Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida, Durham: Duke University Press. (Scholar)
• Popper, K. R., 1967, “Quantum Mechanics Without the ‘Observer’”, in Mario Bunge (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12. (Scholar)
• Pringe, H., 2009, “A transcendental account of correspondence and complementarity”, in M. Bitbol, P. Kerszberg and J. Petitot (eds.), Constituting Objectivity. Transcendental Perspectives on Modern Physics, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 317–323.
• Rosenfeld, L., 1961 [1979], “Foundations of Quantum Theory and Complementarity”, in R. S. Cohen and J. J. Stachel (eds.) Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp, 503–516. (Scholar)
• Schlosshauer, M. and Camilleri, K., 2011, “What classicality? Decoherence and Bohr’s classical concepts”, in Advances in Quantum Theory (American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1327), Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, pp. 26–35. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Bohr and the Problem of the Quantum-to-Classical Transition”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 223–234. (Scholar)
• Shomar, T., 2008, “Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist”, in Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 39: 321– 349. (Scholar)
• Tanona, S., 2004a, “Uncertainty in Bohr’s Response to the Heisenberg Microscope”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 483–507. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004b, “Idealization and Formalism in Bohr’s Approach to Quantum Theory”, in Philosophy of Science, 71: 683–695. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, “Decoherence and the Copenhagen Cut”, in Synthese, 190(16): 3625–3649. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Individuality and Correspondence”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 253–288. (Scholar)
• Whitaker, M.A.B., 2004, “The EPR Paper and Bohr’s Response: A Reassessment”, in Foundation of Physics, 34: 1305–1340. (Scholar)
• Wigner, E., 1967, Symmetries and Reflections. Scientific Essays, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Scholar)
• von Neumann, J., 1932 [1996], Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, R.T. Beyer (trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
• von Weizsäcker, C. F., 1966 [1994], “Kant’s Theory of Natural Science according to P. Plaass”, in P. Plaass, Kant’s Theory of Natural Science, A. E. Miller and M. G. Miller (trans.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 167–187. (Scholar)
• Zinkernagel, H., 2011, “Some Trends in the Philosophy of Physics”, in Teoria, 26(2): 215–241. (Scholar)
• –––, 2015, “Are we living in a quantum world? Bohr and quantum fundamentalism”, in F. Aaserud and H. Kragh (eds.), One hundred years of the Bohr atom: Proceedings from a conference (Scientia Danica. Series M: Mathematica et physica, Volume 1), Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, pp. 419–434. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Niels Bohr on the wave function and the classical/quantum divided”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 53: 9–19. (Scholar)